Catastrophe! What Catastrophe?!

I need a trillion dollars to combat a vary real and vary serious dilemma facing society today. I've got a sequestering plan that's going to cost a lot but it will prevent harm to the human race. I'm going to need a lot of concrete, tax dollars, and manpower to put this plan together but for god's sake, it's for the future of humanity and of our children. Of course I'm talking about the big threat that's been looming over our head for decades now, caused directly by man's meddling with nature. Zombies. Yes, the undead are a pox on our modern society because we disrespected nature by playing football with that skull I found in the ancient Indian burial ground. It's anthropogenic zombification at its worst! All the shower heads, ice augers, and shotguns in the world aren't going to save the planet this time. We need to bury the dead deep underground and encase their corpses in concrete to prevent them from ever rising up!
Ok, I could apply the same logic to every nonsensical scenario in the book. There's no proof that zombies exist so acting immediately in order to prevent an impending apocalypse of the living dead makes no sense. Maybe I'm going too far on a limb here with this tongue-in-cheek joke about global warming and the UN's alarmist position on something many feel is a non-existent issue.

Obama went in front of the UN today declaring that the United States needs to act immediately to prevent climate change. Never mind that he's already put the country another trillion dollars in debt. I suppose we could still find more money for Al Gores schemes and the grants to biased scientists who support his weak theory. The middle classes still aren't paying their fair share after all. There are lots of holes in the anthropogenic global warming theory. Perhaps the biggest one of all, assuming they're right, is just how exactly do we reverse it anyway. I've been reading a lot of articles on the subject and so far nobody has a satisfying answer to this question. Oh sure, we can all abandon our cars, throw the industrialized world out the window, and go back to partying if it 'twas 1299. That would stop it in the sense that you're not making the problem any worse. Of course to listen to the climate hysterics, the problem has already reached critical mass. Our climate is already out of control.

Ok, so what if we pump carbon dioxide underground and "sequester" it in big holding tanks? I remember hearing about this idea last year and it seems to be the scheme de jour. I suppose it makes sense in theory. A lot of things look good on paper though. You're going to store CO2 in these tanks, but how do you collect that much in the first place? How much will it cost to build these tanks and where will they be located? I'm sure a lot of people will be thrilled to bits to have one in their town. Also, what happens if one springs a leak? CO2 is now a pollutant after all, according to his Obamaness and Sir Al of Gore. So in that case you have a leaky, expensive, pressure vessel sitting under someone's back yard, with no way to fill it. Positively lovely!

That seems to be a general trend with climate change. Lots of ideas that will never work, but they all cost a huge fortune to implement. Yet somehow all these people on the green side, such as Michael Ignatiff in his recent attack ads, all claim that it will not effect the economy. That's BS and they know it but people are too stupid to see it, and the ones who perpetrate it couldn't care less about whether somebody has a job or not. It's all about wealth redistribution and expanding the already bloated size of government. Oddly, the only people these climate schemes actually seem to benefit are wealthy politicians and activists, while the rest of us get screwed as always. We really need to stop wasting our precious time and resources on this climate rubbish. With so many other pressing problems in the world, it's become a distraction at best. The rhetoric about saving the planet is nothing more than political masturbation. Let's focus on real issues; crime, poverty, the economy, rather than blaming all of humanity's strife on invisible gases.

read more...

Racism Still Exists in America, But Not Where You Think

"You lie!" Congressman Joe Wilson yelled that to Obama during his health care address last week. Jimmy Carter condemned the comment as having racist undertones. One New York Times reporter claimed to have 'heard' it as "you lie, boy!" Boy being a term once used by white southerners in the past to dehumanize blacks, as it was a title for slaves. Obama himself has shrugged off Carter et al's comments saying that he believed there was no racial intent in the comment. Some Democrats have taken things further by saying that all protests against Obama's heath reforms are also racially charged. Perhaps because the majority of those involved are white. Conveniently forgotten are the African Americans who do oppose Obama. I once had the pleasure to meet a black American trucker who hated his guts with a passion. Another scene on the news showed a black man protesting to save his Second Amendment rights.

All this highlights the childishness of American politics as of late. During the Bush Administration, liberals compared the president to Adolf Hitler and frequently and fiercely accused him of lying, hidden agendas, racism (Take Kanye West's infamous Bush Hates Blacks speech as an example, before we knew Kanye was just a "jackass") and cover-ups. Now the tables have turned. We have gone from the furthest right president in American history to the furthest left. Conservatives are just doing the same things to Obama that the liberals did to Bush. Suddenly we've switched from acceptable and encouraged protest to it being racist to criticize the president. That's particularly worrying. This is why I didn't think America was ready for a black leader, and I still don't.

Oddly, but unsurprisingly, the only people mentioning race and the president are Democrats. Of course I'm not claiming that racism doesn't exist in the US or that people aren't making racist insults about Obama. However, not a single sitting Republican or protester to my knowledge has uttered a single racial comment about him. If protesters were doing this, every media outlet in the country would certainly be all over it. The New York Times reporter could have blasted Wilson for violating House decorum, and labelled him as an out of control person with no respect for the rules. She didn't do that though, she took the racial line. In fact nobody had even suggested Wilson's comment was racist until Carter and the article brought it up. It's nothing more than a cheap attack against Republicans. However, I worry that people will become afraid to criticize Obama's policies or else also risk being labelled a racist and shunned. That's vary bad news for democracy and echoes of the McCarthy era. Is Obama himself supporting this tactic? I don't think so, but there are lot of people in his party who are willing to exploit his race for their agenda. After all, that was one of the main reasons why he was elected to be their presidential candidate. As for Wilson, he apologized to Obama, but I also believe that Carter should apologize for calling him a racist without evidence. That's slander. As for the race thing as a whole, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The day America gets a black president and nobody notices will be the only true victory for racial equality.

read more...

Why the CBC Hates FOX News

A great many people in the media today lament FOX News, the ultra-conservative 24-hour news station which airs in the US and on Canadian satellite. Those from the CBC seem to particularly sneer the network for it's strong political bias and editorials disguised as news. The difference between the two is that FOX is the top rated news station in North America, which the CBC is kept on life support by the CRTC and tax dollars. The news is a product like any other. I can make something which I think is the best ever but it means jack squat if I can't sell it. It branches out into a much larger debate over whether politics belongs in the news. Old timers like the late Walter Cronkite prided themselves on being as fair and balanced as possible. Even though Walt was a raging Liberal, he performed an excellent job in balancing both sides of the debate. Of course why watch DVDs when VHS was just fine? Who wants the extra content that the newer medium offers? A lot of people apparently.

The news has changed dramatically in the last ten years with the rise of the internet. It's no longer a matter of sitting down for the six-'o-clock CBC news broadcast or reading the morning paper. News is available everywhere at any time, on demand. It's not that there isn't a market for it. The market is larger than ever. People want more and conventional journalists are failing to deliver. It's not that there aren't enough stories being covered or that the coverage lacks quality. People however don't want to just read the story, they want the debate that goes along with it. They want to post their comments, they want to read others' comments, they want to hear what the reporters themselves think of the issue. In other words, people want the bias. They full well know its there. To tell young journalists that bias is inherently a bad thing that must be avoided at all costs is a bad decision. Heck, even the great Edward R. Murrow didn't follow that ideology. It's an unavoidable part of the business.

The problem with a lot of journalists today is the inherent elitism in the profession. (Apparently, according to my inside sources, some journalists at the CBC don't even watch TV at all because they think it's a mindless diversion for the stupid. The irony is delicious.) Judging by what I've heard in journalism school, most think their viewers and readers are pretty stupid. One vary liberal student commented that he was shocked that people watch FOX News and then go out and vote. They conveniently forget that their left-wing golden boys and girls such as the BBC, the New York Times, John Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Ariana Huffington are all extremely biased in their reports. One notorious example of this hypocrisy is FOX being frequently attacked for its bias during the lead up to the Iraq war. However, a major study (the PIPA report) found that all major American networks had blindly reported false information on the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. Only PBS News did not, which incidentally also receives the least amount of viewers. For liberal journalists, who make up the majority of the profession, to smugly claim they are not biased is itself a huge lie, not only to the public but to themselves. It serves no one.

So do I think that the media should abandon its old style fair and balanced approach? Well, as I've already said, no such thing ever existed. The media does have a duty to cover the story from both sides, but I feel that there is nothing wrong with the reporter voicing their opinion on subjects, especially given that it is what the people want. Bias is ok as long as journalists openly acknowledge it and don't try to hide it, or worse, pretend it doesn't affect them. Bias should be separate from the main story, but linked to it. It serves to spark debate. A story is just a story, a story with an opinion tacked onto the end is what gets people talking. All it takes is someone to get the ball rolling. This is why talk radio, FOX, CNN, John Stewart, and the bloggers have all become so successful. Ignore the reasons for their success and you too are doomed to go the way of the dinosaur, or more accurately, be left standing in the unemployment line.

read more...

Attention Canadian Youth! Mike Thinks You're Morons

Seig heil to all my readers. I have now proclaimed myself the infallible ruler of the nation. Get ready to do my bidding. Ok, you're probably thinking at this point that I've gone right round the bend. Well it's not so crazy because it would probably be quite easy just to take over the country and make myself emperor of Canada. Especially given how blasé people are when it comes to their leadership, namely those under 25. If you're in that age group and you're reading this, my comments are obviously not directed at you. I got a chance to view CBC's "Screw the Vote" documentary today. Yes, I know it's five years old but judging by the reaction from the rest of the class, it's just as relevant today as it was back in 2004. The spoof "don't vote" campaign looked at why Canadians 18 to 25 have the lowest voter turnout out of any age group; 22% turnout at the time. The documentary annoyed and frustrated me. So I figured I'd do an unabashed writeup of the top five reasons why young people don't vote, then bust the BS wide open.

1. I'm too busy to vote
Whaaaa.... (cocks head like a dog that's head a strange noise). By law, all employers and schools must provide time to for their people to vote. A full hour I believe. Plus there are plenty of advanced polling stations that allow people to vote early. What on Earth could be so pressing in your personal life that you can't make time to drop a piece of paper into a box?! Ok, maybe if Grandma died I'd accept that excuse but seriously, nobody is so busy they can't take five minutes out of their day to determine the future of the entire country/province/city.

2. Voting is inaccessible
Polling stations are everywhere, heck they even have them on university/college campuses. Internet voting just dilutes to process into something akin to American Idol. Get up off your fat ass and drive five minutes to your nearest polling station. And for the love of god please don't tell me you're too busy to do that.

3. Youths/minorities are disenfranchised
"So yah, like, all the people in Ottawa are a bunch of old white men who don't represent my [insert race, ethnicity, religion, bohemian lifestyle of choice]." Uh huh. So not voting is the best way to get representation for your people? Well of course it works! I mean look at all those black people who didn't vote for Obama en mass... oh, bad example. Well we all know that Punjabi people in Brampton can't vote for Indian MPs.... oh, sorry, another bad example. This is the absolute largest pile of bullshit I've ever heard from young people and minority groups. The reason nobody in Ottawa is there to represent you is because you deliberately choose not to vote or run for office to protest that there's nobody in Ottawa to represent you. If you actually think not voting is the best way to encourage representation, you're a dumb ass.

4. My vote is wasted under the current system
Ok, you've already heard my rant about proportional representation. You want to change the system to get smaller parties in for more direct representation of the people by switching to a system where faceless representatives are picked from a list, written up by the same old white dudes you hate so much so they can get all their old white buddies in office. There's a vary good reason for keeping the fringe radicals out of the lime lite anyway, because it creates nightmarish deadlock and nothing gets done. So all you end up with is a bunch of crazies who answer to no one. Smaller ridings might help votes get better represented, or a "none of the above" option may help. Seriously though, a single vote counts a heck of a lot more than no vote at all.

5. Democracy is just a way to get the man to keep oppressing you
Yah, some people actually consider this a legitimate reason for not voting. Of course we cannot accuse Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Mao Zedong, Mugabe, the Taliban, Gadhafi, the Khamer Rouge, Pinochet, Ho Chi Mihn, Tojo, Franco, and Kim Jong Il of ever oppressing anyone, especially minorities. If you actually believe that not voting is the best way to stick it to the man, you're an ass hole. That's the best way to get the true dictators in power.

Note: My swearing here is a parody of the "Screw the Vote" documentary, which uses similar language. So much for the prim and proper CBC.

read more...

September 11th Retrospective

Excuse the lateness of this article. Every year on September 11th, I feel compelled to write something but I never seem to get around to it. It's a vary difficult topic to approach, even for the most seasoned journalists. That day back in 2001 was the defining moment of Generation Y. Unlike the strife our grandparents faced during the Second World War, we have yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Eight years have passed and not a lot has changed. I'd like to take a look back at that day and give a retrospective of all that has happened since then in hopes that you will walk away with some greater insight into the subject, or at least an interest to learn more.

September 11th is one of those events in history where most people can remember vividly exactly what they were doing when the news broke. I was only 15 at the time, yet the magnitude of it hit hard even for someone that young. It forced me to question a lot of my beliefs; namely it was what finally pushed me into atheism. After all, how could people proclaiming to be the religious pious commit such a satanic act? At the time, I didn't even know what Islam was. I can from a rather white bread school. We had a Muslim student come to our class in grade 8 but the kids saw him more as a curiosity rather than a threat or someone to be shunned. Now it has become something to be drilled into the children's heads, to beware of Islamophobia. Strangely, there was little anti-Islamism in the wake of the attacks. A stark contrast to the treatment of "Japs" following Pearl Harbour. On the other side of the coin, the attacks sparked greater anti-Americanism and antisemitism across the world, not only in Muslim countries.

One does not need to dive deep to explain why 9/11 happened. Those who perpetrated the attacks were soulless bigots. Bin Laden himself is a false revolutionary, like so many others who have followed him. Wealthy madmen who claim they're fighting for "the people" when all they want is to craft the world into their own image. They end up being more tyrannical than the tyrants they seek to destroy. Adolf Hitler may have been one of the most evil men in history but at least he was unabashed about his goals and did come from a common background. Bin Laden is the rich, spoilt brat version of Hitler. He hides behind phony claims of oppression and fighting for the common Muslim while he himself was one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia. Like Hitler, he believes in the racial purity and moral superiority of his version of Islam. He is a fascist like any other fascist in history. The only difference is that he is not limited to geographical borders. To people who follow the Islamo-fascist doctrine, anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is ultimately the enemy and deserves death. I have always found terrorism in the name of religion to be especially ironic. If God, or Allah, is omnipotent, can't he do his own dirty work? The people who died in the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and on Flight 93 died simply because they weren't Muslim, despite the fact that some of them were. Do you still become one of their martyrs when said members of your own religion slaughter you in cold blood?

9/11 for the first time in over 60 years brought the world to a breaking point and made a lot of people question our civilization. Bin Laden's goal was to create fear on that day, divide America, and drive the world into a holy war. On the last two, Al Qeada utterly failed in that mission. On fear, it was a decisive victory. The West has become more willing to give up basic rights and liberties for security, something Benjamin Franklin warned against over 200 years earlier. At the border, I can be strip searched or have my laptop and all it's information detained indefinitely without cause. I can't take a drink on a plane. It has opened the door to more snooping on the Internet. My free speech is curtailed so that I don't provoke Muslims. I can't publish cartoons of Mohammad unless I want to be hauled in front of the human rights commission. Ironically, it's still ok to negatively satirize Jesus and the Holocaust. The War on Terrorism has fizzled. Bin Laden has not been seen in years. Some question whether he's even still alive. The people who planned the attacks are living quite well despite being in prison. They're not exactly hanging the Nazis in Gitmo. Some people even believe we should feel sorry for the attackers. Not the kind of treatment you'd expect from those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ultra-political correctness in response to 9/11 may seem like taking Ghandi's morally superior path but where has it brought us? We're just walking in the circles. We have gotten little out of Afghanistan. Our boys are dying over there. One day it looks like we're making serious progress in instituting the most basic human rights there, the next day Karzhai is saying it's ok for Afghan men to starve their wives if denied sex. Perhaps we would have been better off just nuking the country. We went there to destroy Al Qeada and Bin Laden, instead it has turned into a bizarre and perpetual nation building exercise. There are Afghans who want change and modernization but they're up against savages in great number like the Taliban, who seem to be like the proverbial annoying house guest that keeps coming back. I think it's fair to call them that. Afghanistan is the third lowest ranked country in the world in terms of human development as measured by the UN. Take that Sierra Leon. The Human Development Index takes into account literacy, life expectancy, average education, and GDP. Canada by contrast is the third highest ranked. On average, most Afghans won't live to see their 45th birthday, and only one in three can read. Schoolgirls are unlikely to make it past the fourth grade. This is actually an improvement over what it was. How long will it be though before we're back at square one?

In the time since, other Islamic powers have risen up and are threatening the west. Iran has already hinted it wishes to nuke Israel, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Sudan is slaughtering non-Muslim Africans en mass. Iraq has turned into a farce. Obama has since declared that the US will become a soft diplomatic power. However, diplomacy has proven ineffective against these enemies. Then again, so has war. It is difficult to reason with or fight a pan-national ideology, especially when there's no one person to represent it. If anything, 9/11 turned the whole field of international relations upside down. It's much harder to define the enemy. What worked well during World War II and the Cold War, 70 years history, suddenly no longer applied. The only way we can stop this second tide of fascism is to stop pussyfooting around the issue and stand together to denounce it. The Muslim world cannot be expected to do this. To this day, vary few moderate Muslims have spoken up in outrage over the attacks. Instead they'd rather lob accusations of persecution and Islamophobia against Westerners, or make up excuses for the bigots. Many Muslims cheered when the planes hit. The majority of them are not our enemies, but they are not exactly our allies either.

The last subject I want to tackle here are the so called 9/11 Truthers. I kind of let them slide until I say a truck plastered with Truther bumper stickers the other day, and Discovery's recent show about 9/11 conspiracies. They are the people who believe the US government perpetrated the attacks as an excuse to attack Muslims. From my years of dabbling in politics, I can say without a doubt that the US government is not competent enough to pull something like that off. They can't even keep the names of CIA spy agents top secret. You'd think somebody would notice the government putting dynamite in the WTC? Most of them are sad, ignorant fools just like the morons who think the moon landing was a hoax. There is simply no credible evidence to suggest a conspiracy. The Truthers are no better than holocaust deniers, and are terrorists in their own right by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

read more...

Voter Burnout

University of Saskatchewan student newspaper The Sheaf published an interesting article regarding voter burnout among youth. Considering the election posturing right now, it's worth a read. It reflects my belief that parliament is risking a crisis of legitimacy.

The Sheaf: Students Suffer Election Fatigue

read more...

Obama's Bushisms and His Politcal Stance

Just a slight observation about Obama's speeches lately. Particularly in the past week regarding education and health reform. On education, he claimed that Americans who do not graduate high school are basically betraying their country. In the health reforms, he blasted Republican fear mongering. Regardless of whether you're for him or against him, I've noticed that Obama has been taking a strong "you're either for us or against us" tone in his speeches. G.W. Bush used this style a lot and was blasted for it, yet nobody but me has seemed to have noticed Obama doing it. For someone billed as a great united, this is a vary polarizing tactic. It's certainly got the American right rilled. I can't help but wonder whether it's going to come back and bit him in the end.

I also sense that Obama is far more of a socialist than his policies would indicate, suggesting that he is being held back quite a bit. His appointment of Van Jones as "Green Jobs" czar was an odd choice. Jones is an admitted communist and is a 9/11 "Truther", someone who thinks the government perpetrated the attacks. He has since stepped down from the job due to these controversies. Obama is also good friends with 70s self-proclaimed revolutionary Weatherman Bill Ayers. Then there was the Reverend Wright scandal during the elections. He seems to surround himself with a lot of far-left radical thinkers. On the political spectrum, I would place Obama as a social democrat, not a liberal. You get the sense that he wants to take his policies further left into the realm of socialism, but is frustrated due to the political and procedural roadblocks preventing him from doing so. This is why I believe he has been more aggressive in his speeches in recent weeks. It's not just the Republicans that are causing problems either. He's further left than a lot of others in the Democratic party. (In Canada, he'd probably fit right in with the NDP.) Many Democrats do not feel comfortable with his policies. Unlike Canadian leaders, Obama doesn't have the luxury of strict party unity, so bills inevitably get watered down in congress in an effort to please everyone. He has certainly received a rude awakening now that the honeymoon is over. He's either going to have to accept the limitations on his power, or he should just resign now and save face before the BS hits the fan.

read more...

Idiots Hall of Shame: June to August

June Inductees
Us -- No, no, not the United States. I'm talking about Us, you and me. We're idiots for not putting a stop to out of control hypergovernments that have done far more harm than good.

CUPE Toronto -- Striking over 18 sick days? A classic example of greed and a culture of entitlement. They're not going to win public sympathy for this one

Canadian TV Networks -- Radio profits are way up, ad revenue is up, yet they face stiffer competition that TV does. How is it that Canadian TV is still loosing money?!

Gays -- For shamelessly perpetrating their own negative stereotypes and then wondering why so many find them so offensive.

July Inductees
Miller & McGuinty -- Banned pesticides saying they're unsafe, now telling us we must use them on garbage piles to control pests and that they're perfectly safe. Which one is it?

Bundanoon, Australia -- Town completely banned bottled water. Highly reactionary response to a non-existent issue. Also puts citizens in danger should regular tap water become unreliable a la Walkerton.

August Inductees
David Miller & Toronto Council -- Caving in to a militant union and general abuse of Toronto citizens. These corrupt councillors need to be roped in before the city finally falls apart.

Scottish Government -- For releasing a convicted, unrepentant mass murderer on "compassionate grounds".

Expert Panels -- Experts who say nothing useful

Milton Tornado -- For damaging buildings on the wrong side of town! I sure would have liked to have seen some Mc(Guinty) Mansions mowed down.

UK Parliament -- The fall of an empire through corruption, greed, and incompetence. Also bending over backwards to Arab interests at the expense of their own peoples'.

read more...

Loving to Hate the Bike

I think it's fair to say that Canadians have a love-hate relationship with the bicycle and those who ride them. Especially now that cycling has become a "green" alternative to driving. I'm sure everyone who drives has been tempted to throw a milkshake at those spandex clad idiots who run stop signs and insist on riding down busy roads barely wide enough for car traffic. Cyclist see car drivers as a threat to their safety as many don't pay attention to small vehicles. The debate rages over who should get priority on our streets. Now that Saint Al of Gore has put the fear of anthropogenic global warming into the minds of the public, certain politicians have shown increasing hostility toward the car. Cyclists shut down Bloor St in Toronto yesterday during the rush after former Ontario Attorney-General Michal Bryant ran one over in an alleged road rage incident. It is increasingly becoming apparent that bicycles and cars cannot coexist on city streets.

Generally speaking, cyclists are the problem. As I said, they have a complete disregard for the rules of the road. They run stop signs & red lights, they do not yield to motor vehicle traffic, they ride on roads that are unsuitable for cycling, they don't signal their intent, they cut drivers off, they ride on busy sidewalks. Most cyclists don't like to admit it but few will outright deny it, opting instead to just avoid the question. I swear they must have a death wish. Who do you honestly think is going to win a battle between a car weighing in at a metric ton versus a bike that weighs 180lbs including rider?! The end result is slow downs in traffic flow and higher risk of injury and death than there needs to be. Of course drivers cannot be totally excused as many react with aggression to people on bicycles, or simply do not make themselves aware of their presence. To the first one, I think the cause of it can be blamed on cyclists no obeying the rules. The problem is that there is no clear route to punish cyclists who do break the rules. Drivers can be fined, given demerit points, have their vehicle impounded, or have their license taken away. Most of these options don't exist for people on bikes. There seems to be little will to even run safety blitzes for them as is frequently done with cars and trucks.

So what's the solution here. For many politicians, bike lanes seem to be the obvious one. What is a bike lane though? In most cases it's just a line paved down an already existing street, making it increasingly narrow for motor-vehicle traffic. It's just too expensive to widen existing roads to add them. In Toronto, which has bike lanes aplenty, most are considerably underused. You can drive down a busy street during the rush and maybe see one or two cyclists in them. The rest are weaving in and out of traffic or are riding on the sidewalk. The lanes are uneconomical for another reason, that being they can only be used six months out of the year. Vary few are loony enough to ride in the dead of winter when it's twenty below outside. So why waste that money when the road could be widened for more car traffic, or to expand transit which solves pollution issues and can be used all year round.

I think the best solution is to make cyclists pay for the roads in the same way drivers do. Currently, drivers must pay $70 annually for plate renewal, double that if you live in Toronto, to maintain roads. That means filling potholes, resurfacing, expanding the system, repairing bridges, ploughing snow, salting & sanding, and sweeping debris. Should cyclists not also be made to contribute considering that they too are using the roads? The solution would be to require bikes to be plated in the same way cars are. So if the rider is over 16 years of age, their bike would require a small, mandatory annual renewal fee of say $10 to $20, which would go directly toward road maintenance and the construction of bike lanes. For the fee they get a license plate that is attached to the back of their bike. This serves a number of uses. We generate additional revenue of course. It also allows us to track cyclists who aren't abiding by the rules of the road. See one doing something dangerous? Call the cops and given them his plate number. Enough serious infractions and they would not be able to renew their plates, thus be unable to ride their bike, just as we do with car drivers. Cyclists would benefit from this program as well, as plates would serve to curtail the serious problem of of bike theft, or at vary least increase the odds of recovery. When the cyclist takes their new bike to be plated, the make, model, colour, and serial number would be kept on file. If the bike were stolen, police could use it to easily track stolen bikes back to their proper owner. In essence, this would not punish cyclists but rather force them to be treated like any other vehicle on the road, which is what the Highway Traffic Act already stipulates. It might put the breaks on their holier than thou attitudes as well.

read more...

Ignatiff Gambling with Democracy

I'm really starting to get fed up of this garbage. Liberal leader Michael Ignatiff is threatening to pull the plug on the Conservatives come Fall. If he goes through with this, it would be the fourth election in the last five years. One has to admire the tenacity of the Liberals. However, is this really about serving the public good or rather making sure the Grits can go back to ruling with their divine right? Ignatiff has said that he would do a better job as PM but has failed to outline how he would do so other than expanding the EI program, something that is arguably as fine as it is. Really, there's a lot I don't like about Harper. Namely his party's ringing endorsement of the controversial HST reforms in Ontario and BC, and forking over public money to GM and Chrysler. Ignatiff has failed to attack this though and instead has focused on minor "scandals", such as the woman who is currently suing the government after she was detained in Kenya for passport fraud. Incidentally, I think she did not look anything like her passport photo. So one woman who could not be confirmed to be who she was by any authorities until a DNA test was performed constitutes the government abandoning Canadians abroad.

All the Liberals have offered up are empty slogans about being green and bringing accountability but what they do have to show from this Parliament is a string of colossal blunders mixed in with silence on the real issues. An election would cost millions of dollars and I can tell you right now how it would turn out. We'll spend the money, poll turnout will be at its lowest ever, we'll elect another Conservative or Liberal minority, and we'll be right back to square one. Lather, rinse, repeat. None of the parties even have adequate funding to keep fighting annual elections. In the end, all it serves to do is make a mockery of our democratic process. A process which the Liberals under Dion showed little regard for. Don't like the outcome, hijack it and force yourself into power like some sort of petty dictator. The Canadian public won't tolerate it, but they won't retaliate by going Conservative. They'll retaliate by simply not voting. I think this is what Ignatiff is gambling on; that he can grab the support of die hard political junkies that will show up to vote no matter what. It's not exactly equivalent to having an ace up his sleeve, more like betting on a horse named "Glue". This is especially a poor gamble when the liberal-left is on the defensive right now in the Western world. The way Obama and Brown have bungled the US and UK economic recoveries respectively won't draw rousing support from those who follow the news, who are also those junkies. What the Liberals need is a Conservative majority. Of course I'd like to see that but there is practical advantage for Ignatiff et al as well. Simply put it gives them time to reorganize as the party clearly has lost touch with its support base and Canadians at large. This is why Dion had to go and this is why they'll likely loose again. Harper has a solid platform for better or worse while the Liberals have none. They had long put their money on the "better the devil you know" mantra when they were in power, but it might just come back to bite them in the backside. Regardless of what happens, everyone in Parliament needs to stop playing foolish games with democracy and get down to some real business.

read more...